Cavs players tell Jimmy Butler to "stay away from Cleveland"

[TrustMeIamRight]

You guys will believe anything. Kyrie, Love and Lebron will most likely be together for awhile IMO. This is all fake news like evey year. Remember when Love was supposed to be traded after year 1 or year 2.

The only news I believe right now is PG is going to LA and that has been pretty well known for awhile now.

Tell me you don't believe this? No chance those three stay together 'for awhile' -- if Cleveland doesn't find a taker for Love and upgrade elsewhere. Lebron will be gone next year.

They got blown out of the water by a younger GSW squad. Lebron isn't going to waste the 4-5 years he has left waiting around. I'd wager he opts out next year and goes to LAL with Paul George. Only way I see him staying in Cleveland is if they find a trade for Love and bring another star to play with Lebron and Kyrie.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Anybody is young compared to you...

Oh yeah!!!!

 

[SJ76]

Jimmys a pretty chill dude. Pretty sure Cleveland would love to have him not guarding Lebron and could help with KD.

 

[trojanfan12]

Any truth that it had to be either Shaq or Kobe but there was no away that both were going to coexist on the same team? Our local reporter covered the Lakers in LA during that period and claimed that Kobe would not defer to Shaq at all. Not saying it is true, but just wonderin

Shaq has said that he left over money and that Kobe had nothing to do with it. There were definitely issues between the 2. Kobe felt like it was time for him to lead the team and he always had a problem with the fact that Shaq would come into training camp out of shape and wouldn't have injury issues taken care of in the off-season. In fact, Shaq once said "I got hurt on company time, I'm gonna heal on company time."

For his part, Kobe was done deferring to Shaq and wanted to lead the team. Shaq didn't want to give up leadership. The consensus is that had Shaq been able to work out the money with Dr. Buss, Dr. Buss would have sat the 2 of them down and worked out some type of compromise (the ability to do that was one of his greatest attributes)

But when Shaq dunked in a pre-season game and screamed "You gonna pay me now?" at Dr. Buss who was sitting in the stands, that pretty much ended any chance of Shaq remaining in LA.

 

[trojanfan12]

Where is that dude?

Found him.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Where is that dude?

#stillrecovering

 

[DorianRo]

Shaq has said that he left over money and that Kobe had nothing to do with it. There were definitely issues between the 2. Kobe felt like it was time for him to lead the team and he always had a problem with the fact that Shaq would come into training camp out of shape and wouldn't have injury issues taken care of in the off-season. In fact, Shaq once said "I got hurt on company time, I'm gonna heal on company time."

For his part, Kobe was done deferring to Shaq and wanted to lead the team. Shaq didn't want to give up leadership. The consensus is that had Shaq been able to work out the money with Dr. Buss, Dr. Buss would have sat the 2 of them down and worked out some type of compromise (the ability to do that was one of his greatest attributes)

But when Shaq dunked in a pre-season game and screamed "You gonna pay me now?" at Dr. Buss who was sitting in the stands, that pretty much ended any chance of Shaq remaining in LA.

Never understood the problem with Shaq showing up the next season out of shape since he brought it when it mattered most in the post season. Sounds like Kobe just getting sick of playing 2nd fiddle. As long as Shaq was ready to go in the post season who cares?

The name of the game is winning championships and Shaq was successful as such being lead dog.

The Regular season doesn't mean shit to a team like the Kobe/Shaq lakers. Just as it means nothing to teams like the Warriors or Cavs now. Its championship or BUST.

That was just Kobe being Kobe.


As long as Shaq was ready to go in the playoffs, what did it matter how out of shape he was to enter the season? Lakers were winning titles. Until Kobe went straight up BALL HOG in 2003 and 2004

 

[trojanfan12]

Never understood the problem with Shaq showing up the next season out of shape since he brought it when it mattered most in the post season.

Seriously?!?

By the time Kobe started having an issue about it, Shaq was beginning his decline. After the 3-peat, Shaq (who was already lazy) got even lazier. It was taking him longer to get in shape and he had lost much of the explosiveness, athleticism and quickness for his size that gave him such huge advantages.

Sounds like Kobe just getting sick of playing 2nd fiddle. As long as Shaq was ready to go in the post season who cares?

Shaq has since said that he should have listened to Kobe about staying in shape in the off-season. Says he would have been "the MDE" for longer if he had because he would have maintained that explosiveness, athleticism, etc. for a few more years.

The name of the game is winning championships and Shaq was successful as such being lead dog.

Not after the 3-peat they weren't. In fact, they didn't win another title until Shaq was gone and Kobe was leading the team.

The Regular season doesn't mean shit to a team like the Kobe/Shaq lakers. Just as it means nothing to teams like the Warriors or Cavs now. Its championship or BUST.

And after the 3-peat, the Lakers BUSTED every season that Shaq was still there.

That was just Kobe being Kobe.

Kobe ended his career with 5 titles to Shaq's 4 and the only reason Shaq has 4 is because D-Wade turned himself into MJ in the finals vs. the Mavs. Also, Shaq himself said he should have listened to Kobe.

Additionally, when Shaq got to Miami, he said that it was D-Wade's team and he was just there to help win a title. Had he done the same with Kobe, he likely gets 2-3 more rings in LA.

So Kobe being Kobe wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Heatles84]

Seriously?!?

By the time Kobe started having an issue about it, Shaq was beginning his decline. After the 3-peat, Shaq (who was already lazy) got even lazier. It was taking him longer to get in shape and he had lost much of the explosiveness, athleticism and quickness for his size that gave him such huge advantages.



Shaq has since said that he should have listened to Kobe about staying in shape in the off-season. Says he would have been "the MDE" for longer if he had.



Not after the 3-peat they weren't. In fact, they didn't win another title until Shaq was gone and Kobe was leading the team.



And after the 3-peat, the Lakers BUSTED every season that Shaq was still there.



Kobe ended his career with 5 titles to Shaq's 4 and the only reason Shaq has 4 is because D-Wade turned himself into MJ in the finals vs. the Mavs. Also, Shaq himself said he should have listened to Kobe.

Additionally, when Shaq got to Miami, he said that it was D-Wade's team and he was just there to help win a title. Had he done the same with Kobe, he likely gets 2-3 more rings in LA.

So Kobe being Kobe wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

If Shaq had the same work ethic as Kobe, I have a feeling that we'd be calling Shaq the GOAT. Just my opinion.

 

[trojanfan12]

If Shaq had the same work ethic as Kobe, I have a feeling that we'd be calling Shaq the GOAT. Just my opinion.

It's entirely possible. He was ridiculous in his prime. He was literally unstoppable.

 

[DorianRo]

Seriously?!?

By the time Kobe started having an issue about it, Shaq was beginning his decline. After the 3-peat, Shaq (who was already lazy) got even lazier. It was taking him longer to get in shape and he had lost much of the explosiveness, athleticism and quickness for his size that gave him such huge advantages.



Shaq has since said that he should have listened to Kobe about staying in shape in the off-season. Says he would have been "the MDE" for longer if he had because he would have maintained that explosiveness, athleticism, etc. for a few more years.



Not after the 3-peat they weren't. In fact, they didn't win another title until Shaq was gone and Kobe was leading the team.



And after the 3-peat, the Lakers BUSTED every season that Shaq was still there.



Kobe ended his career with 5 titles to Shaq's 4 and the only reason Shaq has 4 is because D-Wade turned himself into MJ in the finals vs. the Mavs. Also, Shaq himself said he should have listened to Kobe.

Additionally, when Shaq got to Miami, he said that it was D-Wade's team and he was just there to help win a title. Had he done the same with Kobe, he likely gets 2-3 more rings in LA.

So Kobe being Kobe wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

Ummmm... Shaq had an MVP year in 2005. Should have won it. But they decided to give it to Nash. HE didn't really hit a big decline until 2007. Lakers didn't win a title after the 3-peat because of Kobe's ball hog CHUCKING. Fact. Go look at the 2004 Finals for that. Lakers were at their best going inside-out. Not outside Kobe Inefficient brick-in.

Kobe/Shaq lakers should have won more like 6 titles not 3. But between Kobe getting a big Ego, and the Lakers Front office not giving the most dominant big man in history the money he wants who just gave them THREE straight titles, it was the reason they didn't win 6.

Ok.. Kobe won 5 titles, he also piggybacked Shaq for THREE of them. Shaq only piggybacked 1 title.

Point is, I don't know why mess with a winning formula. If you're winning titles at the end of the day, who the hell GIVES A SHIT!!

The name of the game is winning championships. Thats what teams compete for in sports

 

[trojanfan12]

Ummmm... Shaq had an MVP year in 2005. Should have won it. But they decided to give it to Nash. HE didn't really hit a big decline until 2007. Lakers didn't win a title after the 3-peat because of Kobe's ball hog CHUCKING. Fact. Go look at the 2004 Finals for that. Lakers were at their best going inside-out. Not outside Kobe Inefficient brick-in.

Kobe/Shaq lakers should have won more like 6 titles not 3. But between Kobe getting a big Ego, and the Lakers Front office not giving the most dominant big man in history the money he wants who just gave them THREE straight titles, it was the reason they didn't win 6.

Ok.. Kobe won 5 titles, he also piggybacked Shaq for THREE of them. Shaq only piggybacked 1 title.

Point is, I don't know why mess with a winning formula. If you're winning titles at the end of the day, who the hell GIVES A SHIT!!

The name of the game is winning championships. Thats what teams compete for in sports

So many words used to be wrong. Amazing.

Kobe didn't piggyback on anything with Shaq. The Lakers weren't getting a any of those 3 titles without Kobe any more than they were getting them without Shaq.

The "winning formula" wasn't winning anymore because Shaq was declining and wasn't the player he used to be.

Pretty hilarious that you think you know more about it than Shaq himself.

But please, continue to troll post about things you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[DorianRo]

They

So many words used to be wrong. Amazing.

Kobe didn't piggyback on anything with Shaq. The Lakers weren't getting a any of those 3 titles without Kobe any more than they were getting them without Shaq.

The "winning formula" wasn't winning anymore because Shaq was declining and wasn't the player he used to be.

Pretty hilarious that you think you know more about it than Shaq himself.

But please, continue to troll post about things you know absolutely nothing about.

They weren't get the titles without Kobe but he was NOT the the lead dog who the opposing team was totally focused on stopping. Lakers were more successful running the offense through Shaq as the 3-peat showed than they were ever were running the offense through Kobe. Basically the Lakers LUCKED OUT getting 2 titles with Kobe as they only would have won 1 title if Boston wasn't injured in the 2010 finals. Kobe's innefcient self centered CHUCKING is what cost the Lakers more titles. They should have the 2004 Championship but Kobe's chucking cost them. They won in 2010 in SPITE of Kobe's Game 7 chucking where he went what like 8-24 from the field?

 

[trojanfan12]

They weren't get the titles without Kobe but he was NOT the the lead dog who the opposing team was totally focused on stopping.

It doesn't matter who the lead dog is if you can't win a title without the other player. Who cares if a player is the lead dog on team that isn't winning a championship?

Also, the whole point of Shaq/Kobe was that there was no way to stop them both. Teams tried. If they concentrated on Shaq, Kobe went off. If they concentrated on Kobe, Shaq went off. With Kobe, teams could never totally concentrate on Shaq and with Shaq, they could never concentrate on stopping Kobe. It's why that combination worked.

Lakers were more successful running the offense through Shaq as the 3-peat showed than they were ever were running the offense through Kobe.

Wrong again. The reason the offense ran through Shaq was because they ran the triangle which runs through the post. Those Lakers teams could have run virtually any offense, including running it through Kobe, and likely would have been just as successful.

Basically the Lakers LUCKED OUT getting 2 titles with Kobe as they only would have won 1 title if Boston wasn't injured in the 2010 finals.

Nice try at revisionist history. It's also possible that the Lakers would have gotten the 3-peat had they not been injured during the first finals vs. the Celtics.

They won in 2010 in SPITE of Kobe's Game 7 chucking where he went what like 8-24 from the field?

I guess you forgot about his 15 rebounds that game. How he outrebounded the entire Celtics front line by himself. Great players find ways to help their team, even when their shots aren't falling.

Additionally, lets not pretend that it was just Kobe in that game. Call it great defense by both teams or just crappy offense. But neither team shot well in that game.

I really don't get why you keep posting. You are literally never right about anything you post and you're posts are easy to tear apart.

 

[DorianRo]

It doesn't matter who the lead dog is if you can't win a title without the other player. Who cares if a player is the lead dog on team that isn't winning a championship?

Also, the whole point of Shaq/Kobe was that there was no way to stop them both. Teams tried. If they concentrated on Shaq, Kobe went off. If they concentrated on Kobe, Shaq went off. With Kobe, teams could never totally concentrate on Shaq and with Shaq, they could never concentrate on stopping Kobe. It's why that combination worked.



Wrong again. The reason the offense ran through Shaq was because they ran the triangle which runs through the post. Those Lakers teams could have run virtually any offense, including running it through Kobe, and likely would have been just as successful.



Nice try at revisionist history. It's also possible that the Lakers would have gotten the 3-peat had they not been injured during the first finals vs. the Celtics.



I guess you forgot about his 15 rebounds that game. How he outrebounded the entire Celtics front line by himself. Great players find ways to help their team, even when their shots aren't falling.

Additionally, lets not pretend that it was just Kobe in that game. Call it great defense by both teams or just crappy offense. But neither team shot well in that game.

I really don't get why you keep posting. You are literally never right about anything you post and you're posts are easy to tear apart.

They never would have beaten the 2008 Celtics regardless. They got torn apart and abused. The main reason Kobe got all those rebounds in 2010 is because the Celtics MAIN REBOUNDER Was out HURT.

And dont be a dumb Kobe kid either please. There is ample evidence to support the fact that Kobe's 1 on 5 chucking was more of a detriment that it EVER was a success. Lakers were always most successful when Kobe was sharing the ball, getting the team involved. Not going 8-30 from the field.

Lets also not forget most know the REAL FMVP in 2010 was Gasol. NOT Kobe. Once again.. Inside-Out ball which is where the Lakers were most successful. NOT outside Kobe-In ball.

The winning formula for the Lakers was ALWAYS inside-out ball.

Hence, The first Lakers 3 peat with Shaq and 2010 Gasol. When it was KoMe ball. Look at 2003-2004, Blow 3-1 Series Lead against the suns, blown series later on When Dwight/nash arrived.

 

[trojanfan12]

They never would have beaten the 2008 Celtics regardless. They got torn apart and abused. The main reason Kobe got all those rebounds in 2010 is because the Celtics MAIN REBOUNDER Was out HURT.

This is complete horseshit. We have no idea what would have happened had the Lakers been healthy. The fact that you try to claim that the Lakers still wouldn't have won if healthy, while saying the Celtics would have won if they weren't shows you are just here to troll.

Also, the Celtics didn't lose their MAIN REBOUNDER until game 6. In 2008, the Lakers were without their injured player for the entire playoffs.

And dont be a dumb Kobe kid either please. There is ample evidence to support the fact that Kobe's 1 on 5 chucking was more of a detriment that it EVER was a success. Lakers were always most successful when Kobe was sharing the ball, getting the team involved. Not going 8-30 from the field.

There is zero evidence of that. And when did 8-24 become 8-30? Here are the shooting stats for the main players in that game:

Celtics:

Pierce: 5-15
Garnett: 8-13
Wallace: 5-11
Allen: 3-14
Rondo: 6-13

Lakers:

Artest: 7-18
Gasol: 6-16
Bynum: 1-5
Bryant: 8-24
Fisher: 4-6
Odom: 3-8

Outside of Garnett and D-Fish (who only took 4 shots) no one else shot well in that game for either team. Additionally. Garnett, Wallace and Pierce as a group, got outrebounded by Kobe. That's two 7 footers and a forward getting outrebounded by a shooting guard. If those players were that good, they should have been able to step up and pick up the slack for 1 game, especially a game 7 and they should never get outrebounded by a shooting guard...ever.

When Kobe had teammates he could trust, he shared the ball. If his teammates weren't hitting, he shot more. He was a shooting guard. Shooting guards shoot. I have been plenty critical of Kobe throughout his career and was never a fan of his. However, having him on the team resulted in 5 titles the Lakers likely don't have without him. So, I'll take it.

 

[DorianRo]

By 2010 Celtics core was already past their primes and they still most likely would have won the series if Perkins played as thats what the series ultimately came down to. Rebounds. Garnett was a SHELL of his former self by then. Even Rivers said Perkins injury was the reason why LA won the title that year and I think most would agree with that..

Aside from that point, lakers should have 8-9 titles not 5 over the past 17 years if not for Kobe's SEFLISHness which is the main point of contention. Hes been played with Prime Shaq, Prime Gasol, Prime Dwight, Bynum etc and great role players outside of 2005-2007.

5 titles is good but not NEARLY what the Lakers should have won.

Kobe/Shaq Lakers should have 5 or 6 titles without question. Kobe with Gasol and Bynum should have won 3 at least. Kobe With Dwight and Nash should have been good for 1 anyways.

Its like the Collusion Heat winning only 2 titles and The Cavs only winning 1.

These are MASSIVE underachievements. So while everyone is so quick to praise their successes, they deserve blame when they don't.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

By 2010 Celtics core was already past their primes and they still most likely would have won the series if Perkins played as thats what the series ultimately came down to. Rebounds. Garnett was a SHELL of his former self by then. Even Rivers said Perkins injury was the reason why LA won the title that year and I think most would agree with that..

Aside from that point, lakers should have 8-9 titles not 5 over the past 17 years if not for Kobe's SEFLISHness which is the main point of contention. Hes been played with Prime Shaq, Prime Gasol, Prime Dwight, Bynum etc and great role players outside of 2005-2007.

5 titles is good but not NEARLY what the Lakers should have won.

Kobe/Shaq Lakers should have 5 or 6 titles without question. Kobe with Gasol and Bynum should have won 3 at least. Kobe With Dwight and Nash should have been good for 1 anyways.

Its like the Collusion Heat winning only 2 titles and The Cavs only winning 1.

These are MASSIVE underachievements. So while everyone is so quick to praise their successes, they deserve blame when they don't.

Heat won 2 of 4.
If LeBron plays just average vs Mavs, it's 3/4.
What's it take to not be a massive failure?

 

[trojanfan12]

By 2010 Celtics core was already past their primes and they still most likely would have won the series if Perkins played as thats what the series ultimately came down to. Rebounds. Garnett was a SHELL of his former self by then. Even Rivers said Perkins injury was the reason why LA won the title that year and I think most would agree with that..

So, the Celtics coach saying they lost because Perkins went down in game 6, means that's the reason? I'm sure he is completely unbiased and has nothing to gain from that statement.

I wonder if he'd agree that the Lakers not having a key player for the entire series in '08 cost them the title?

Aside from that point, lakers should have 8-9 titles not 5 over the past 17 years if not for Kobe's SEFLISHness which is the main point of contention. Hes been played with Prime Shaq, Prime Gasol, Prime Dwight, Bynum etc and great role players outside of 2005-2007.

Kobe had nothing to do with Shaq leaving. Shaq said this himself. So again, it's hilarious that you think you know more than Shaq about why he left.

Gasol and Kobe worked out very well. He and Gasol were/are best of friends and Gasol held back from signing with another team in FA because he wanted to see if the Lakers would be able to get what they needed to be a title contender because he wanted to continue to play with Kobe.

Dwight is on what? his 3rd team since he left the Lakers and has been the problem at every stop (including the Lakers) since he left Orlando.

Kobe/Shaq Lakers should have 5 or 6 titles without question.

Shaq leaving over money is why they didn't. Those are Shaq's words not mine.

Kobe with Gasol and Bynum should have won 3 at least.

Had Bynum not been out for the entire playoffs in 2008, they may very well have done just that. But, of course, according you, the Lakers would have still lost with him, while the Celtics lost in 2010 because they were without Perkins who wasn't as good as Bynum.

Kobe With Dwight and Nash should have been good for 1 anyways.

Except that Nash ended up being out for the entire season, Dwight missed a good chunk of the season because of his back and Kobe blew out his Achilles just before the playoffs.

At this point, there are literally only 2 options with you. You are either trolling or you're stupid. If you're stupid, you better start showing an ability to learn.

If you're a troll, you're going to be banned from every thread you post your trolling bullshit in.

 

[trojanfan12]

Heat won 2 of 4.
If LeBron plays just average vs Mavs, it's 3/4.
What's it take to not be a massive failure?

Considering what was expected/predicted when Lebron went to Miami, it's hard to call it a really successful run. However, considering that they won back to back titles, it can't be considered a failure either.

In the end, it was successful, but not as successful as it could/should have been. Had they lost in that 1st series vs. the Spurs and ended up 1-3...that would have been a failure.

Of course, had they lost that series, maybe they come back on a mission like the Spurs did and end up winning 2 anyway?